CPS: Pre-trial Witness Interviews

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Attorney-General's consultation paper on pre-trial witness interviews by prosecutors is to be published.

Lord Goldsmith: In April 2002 there was acute public concern about the outcome of the Damilola Taylor murder case. I therefore asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to look into the Crown Prosecution Service's handling of the case, to consider whether there were implications for the conduct of future cases. I asked him particularly to consider whether the time had come to introduce a system where, before trial, key witnesses could, in appropriate cases, be interviewed by the prosecutor, as this might be a useful mechanism for assessing the credibility and reliability of witnesses at an early stage in the proceedings.
	The consultation paper on pre-trial witness interviews by prosecutors has been published today and lodged in the Libraries of both Houses. It will be accessible via the net on the CPS web site at www.cps.gov.uk.
	The paper will be a valuable springboard for comment, both from within and outside the legal profession, and will be circulated widely. The final date for comments is 21 July 2003.

CPS: Early Legal Advice and Charging Pilot

Lord Orme: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the results will be known of the pilot scheme implementing the recommendation of Sir Robin Auld that the Crown Prosecution Service should take responsibility for determining the charge from the outset of the case.

Lord Goldsmith: The independent evaluation of the early legal advice and charging pilot was published in a series of reports, the final version being released in April 2003.
	The results have been very positive. The number of cases discontinued in the pilot sites was down, dramatically in some areas; more defendants pleaded guilty at first hearing; cracked and ineffective trials were significantly reduced and the number of convictions increased. The pilot demonstrated that the early input of a Crown Prosecutor's legal expertise into police investigations helps to build watertight cases. Getting cases right from the start means fewer abandoned prosecutions, less delay, more cases being brought to justice and a better deal for victims and witnesses.
	The Crown Prosecution Service is working up a shadow-charging scheme to prepare for a seamless transition to the full statutory scheme when the Criminal Justice Bill is enacted.

Maladministration Complaints

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider the principles of good administration require them to deal within reasonable time with complaints of maladministration under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information submitted to them by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government endeavour to deal with all complaints submitted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration within reasonable time in line with the principles laid down in the code itself and in the Guidance on Interpretation of the Code.

Azerbaijan and Armenia: Arms Embargoand UK Exports

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any goods subject to the OSCE arms embargo have recently been approved for export to Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Her Majesty's Government remain committed to the OSCE arms embargo against both Azerbaijan and Armenia, which we interpret as covering all goods and technology controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (commonly known as the military list).
	In December 2002, the Government approved an export licence application for demining equipment for the HALO Trust for demining operations in Armenia and Azerbaijan.
	The decision was made in accordance with our practice occasionally to make an exemption to our interpretation of the embargo by approving exports of non-lethal military goods to humanitarian, media or peacekeeping organisations where it is clear that the embargo was not intended to prevent those exports and there is a strong humanitarian case for them.

G8 Summit: Government's Objectives

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be their specific objectives at the G8 Summit in June 2003 with respect to economic and social support for the people of Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Zimbabwe.

Baroness Amos: The G8 has actively supported African efforts to achieve and consolidate peace and security throughout Africa but particularly in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sierra Leone and Sudan.
	At the summit in Evian G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to achieve the objectives set out in the Doha Development Agenda and reported on progress made on the Africa Action Plan since the summit in Kananaskis in June 2002. Beyond Evian, DfID's development assistance programme in Africa will rise to £1 billion by 2005–06.
	The Africa Action Plan focuses on conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction in Africa, including in Sudan, the DRC, Angola and Sierra Leone.
	The UK supports humanitarian and peace building work in Sudan. With others in the international community, we are now planning for the hard work of recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction when there is peace.
	In the DRC we are working actively within the international community supporting implementation of the proposed new transitional national government and a sustainable settlement of the long-running DRC conflict. We have committed ourselves to a significant increase in development assistance once the new government is established. The UK has also committed to a contribution to the rapid deployment multinational force which will help to stabilise the current crisis situation in Ituri region.
	In order to cement the Angolan peace process, we are contributing to the multi-donor demobilisation and reintegration programme, and are continuing our support to meet urgent humanitarian needs. With others we are also helping the government to focus on longer-term reconstruction and poverty needs, including work on a proposed national poverty reduction strategy.
	In Sierra Leone our key objectives are resolving conflict, improving standards of governance and combating corruption, reforming the security sector, reducing poverty, ensuring macro-economic stability and developing human resources. These are shaped by our 10-year Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Sierra Leone.
	In Zimbabwe our programme is entirely focused on the humanitarian crisis and mitigating the impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Other activities are limited by the difficult policy environment. We expect to remain one of the three largest donors along with the USA, and European Commission with which we share similar objectives and co-ordinate our efforts. In Evian the G8 expressed concern about the reports of further violence by the authorities in Zimbabwe and called on the Government of Zimbabwe to respect the right to peaceful demonstration.
	The UK does not have a bilaterial programme with Liberia, although we provide humanitarian assistance when the need arises.

G8 Summit: Government's Objectives

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be their specific objectives at the G8 Summit in June 2003 with reference to:
	(a) the fulfilment of NePAD (the New Partnership for Africa's Development) objectives on conflict prevention, management and resolution and on peacemaking, peacekeeping, peace enforcement, post-conflict resolution rehabilitation and reconstruction;
	(b) the establishment of a G8/African Joint Task Team on Peace Support Operations; and
	(c) support for the African Peace and Security Agenda.

Baroness Amos: The objectives achieved at the G8 June Evian Summit included the following commitments to support the African peace and security agenda, in line with the G8 Africa Action Plan, support to NePAD and the African Union (AU). These commitments are set out in the Implementation Report by Africa Personal Representatives on the G8 African Action Plan as follows;
	Conflict Resolution: the G8 has actively supported African efforts to achieve and consolidate peace and security throughout Africa but particularly in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Sudan and in other countries such as Burundi, Central African Republic and Cote d'Ivoire.
	The G8 remains committed to continuing this support. In particular it has invited the international financial institutions to strengthen significantly their instruments for the consolidation of peace and post-conflict reconstruction and will work to this end in their governing bodies.
	Development of peace support capacity in Africa: the G8 is taking the following steps in pursuit of this objective:
	A joint Africa/G8 plan to enhance African peace support operations, developed through the Berlin Process, that aims to mobilise technical and financial assistance so that, by 2010, African partners are able to engage more effectively to prevent and resolve violent conflict on the continent, and undertake peace support operations in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Initial steps in implementation will include the following:
	the establishment, equipping and training by 2010 of coherent, multinational, multi-disciplinary standby brigade capabilities including civilian components, at the AU and regional level, in particular integrated mission planning capability, mission field headquarters and strategic headquarters which would be available for UN-endorsed missions undertaken under the auspices of the UN, AU or an African regional organisation;
	the development of capacities to provide humanitarian, security and reconstruction support in the context of complex peace support operations; and,
	the development of institutional capacities at the continental and sub-regional level to prevent conflict through mediation, facilitation, observation and other strategies.

G8 Summit: Government's Objectives

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be their specific objectives at the G8 Summit in June 2003 with reference to:
	(a) combating the illicit proliferation of small arms, light weapons and landmines; and
	(b) curbing the activities of arms brokers wherever they operate.

Baroness Amos: The UK played a significant role in promoting small arms issues at the G8 Summit in June. Our aims at the summit were to:
	(1) highlight the need to reinforce the fight against illicit trafficking of arms and promote the adoption of stringent controls and careful scrutiny of arms transfers by all exporting states;
	(2) reaffirm our commitment to tackle the problem of small arms and light weapons, by maintaining and strengthening the momentum created by the adoption in 2001 of the UN Programme of Action to Combat Eradicate and Prevent the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects; and
	(3) to agree to work jointly to promote strict implementation of national legislation and guidelines.
	At the summit itself, the volume of issues under consideration prevented the full discussion of small arms issues that the UK would have liked. The final statement notes that G8 States "welcomed the upcoming meeting of States on the illicit traffic in small arms to be held at the United Nations in New York in July 2003".
	Her Majesty's Government will hold further discussions with partners at the United Nations Biennial Meeting of States on the importance of strengthening international controls on the illicit trade in small arms, including on arms exports. The Government will also emphasise the importance of effective and co-ordinated international assistance to affected countries, particularly those in Africa.

Olympics 2012: Safety and Security

Lord Jopling: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the event that London secures the 2012 Olympic Games, what assurances will be given to competitors in the 2012 Olympic Games about their personal safety; and whether they will estimate the number of troops and police who will be deployed around the Olympic village and Games sites, together with estimates of the proportion which will be armed.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If successful, the International Olympic Committee will require London to provide a range of safety and security assurances. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), which has a high degree of expertise in policing and countering the threat of terrorism at major events, will develop comprehensive security arrangements. It would be premature to speculate on the detail at this stage.

Fixed Penalty Notices: Disorder Offences

Lord Campbell of Croy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to extend the fixed penalty notice system to drunkenness and other anti-social behaviour.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Provisions in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 allow police officers to issue fixed penalty notices for specified offences of disorder, which penalise a variety of anti-social behaviours including drunkenness. These provisions have been piloted and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 14 May that they are now to be extended to all forces in England and Wales.
	Community support officers will also be able to issue these penalty notices and the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill seeks to allow persons accredited by chief constables to issue them for some anti-social offending. The Bill also seeks to include 16 and 17 year-olds in the scheme through a pilot at first. The Government hope to add additional offences involving anti-social behaviour to the scheme later this year.

Communications Data

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they confirm the accuracy of Privacy International's calculation that a billion individual pieces of data (comprising e-mail logs and logs of Internet activity), representing requests to communications providers for access to around a million customer records, are released to the police and other official bodies in each year; and, if not, what is the true figure.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In the consultation paper, Access to communications data—respecting privacy and protecting the public from crime, the Government estimated that around half a million requests for communications data are made annually by law enforcement agencies, the intelligence services and other public authorities with functions to investigate specific criminal offences and conduct. No records are currently required to be kept, but the Government are consulting on the implementation of a regulatory framework for access to communications data (under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) that would require retention of records.

Criminal Convictions: Humberside

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have to improve the conviction rate for all crimes notified to the police in Humberside.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have set a Public Service Agreement target to bring 1.2 million recorded offences to justice by 2005–06. As a first step to delivering that target, each local criminal justice board has been set a "Narrowing the Justice Gap" target for 2003–04 to increase the number of offences brought to justice in its area by five per cent, compared with the area's performance in 2001–02.
	We are working closely with all local criminal justice boards, including Humberside, to develop and execute initiatives which address weaknesses at specific points in the criminal justice system (for example, witness and defendant attendance at court), in the process as a whole (for example, through better joined-up working between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)) and by targeting persistent offenders.

Firearms: Record-keeping and Marking

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they have taken to ensure that United Kingdom practice complies with the record-keeping and marking firearms requirements as set out in the United Nations Firearms Protocol, and to encourage other governments to meet the same standards of record-keeping and marking of firearms.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are currently working towards ratification of the Firearms Protocol in conjunction with the European Commission, with particular regard to the length of time for which records must be kept. The marking of weapons is a key requirement of the protocol where further international consensus is needed. We are actively involved in the UN Panel of Governmental Experts which is examining an international instrument on the marking and tracing of small arms.

Firearms Amnesty

The Earl of Shrewsbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will provide a breakdown of the numbers and types of items handed in during the recent firearms amnesty, including those items which are defined in the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997 as prohibited weapons; and
	Whether they will provide a breakdown of those items handed in during the recent amnesty which are non functional firearms or ammunition, or those which are listed as obsolete calibres.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Final figures from police forces will be available shortly. We will use these to publish a detailed breakdown of the items handed in. Latest police estimates indicate that over 40,000 guns were handed in during the amnesty, along with nearly a million rounds of ammunition.

Extradition Bill: Police Powers Draft Code  of Practice

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the draft code of practice on the use of police powers under the Extradition Bill.

Lord Filkin: I am today publishing a draft code of practice which sets out the application and operation of police powers in extradition cases, under Part 4 of the Extradition Bill.
	Copies of the draft code of practice, and the covering consultation paper, are available in the Libraries of both Houses and the document can also be viewed on the Home Office website.
	Interested parties are invited to submit their comments and views on the content, structure and format of the draft, by Monday 8 September, to:
	Code of Practice Consultation, Extradition Bill Team, Room 1021, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT, from which further copies of the document are available.
	All replies that are received will be made public unless the author explicitly requests that this should not happen.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

Baroness Massey of Darwen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the leasehold provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 will be implemented.

Lord Rooker: The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 gained Royal Assent last year (1 May).
	The leasehold provisions of this Act are being phased in over a period of time. A first commencement order on 26 July last year brought in most of the changes to the rules for enfranchisement and lease renewal for flats and houses.
	We are now in the process of implementing the remaining leasehold provisions in two more stages. By the end of September 2003 we expect to bring the main package into force: the provisions relating to the new right to manage, the requirement to use a right to enfranchise company in collective enfranchisement cases, the new requirements for consulting leaseholders about major works and the widening of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal jurisdiction.

Domiciliary Oxygen Services

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will announce the results of the review of domiciliary oxygen services, initiated in March 2000; what conclusions they have reached concerning the provision of ambulatory oxygen for domiciliary use; and whether scope exists to improve the efficiency of domiciliary oxygen through the prescription of conserving devices.

Baroness Andrews: The review of the domiciliary oxygen service is at an advanced stage. It has considered the provision of ambulatory oxygen for domiciliary use and the use of technologies such as conserving devices. We expect to announce our conclusions shortly.

NHS: Management Costs Exclusions

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their estimate of the costs of headquarters and infrastructure directly and indirectly related to the staff that are included within management costs which have been excluded from National Health Service management costs for each of the last three years ended 31 March 2003; and
	What is their estimate of the costs that have been excluded from the definition of management costs for 2001–02 and 2002–03 for each of the following:
	(a) clinical excellence;
	(b) shared services;
	(c) health informatics services;
	(d) national booked admissions services pilots;
	(e) NHS Direct; and
	(f) NHS Beacons; and
	What is their estimate of the costs that have been excluded from the definition of management costs for 2001–02 and 2002–03 for each of the following:
	(a) central funding for NHS LIFT;
	(b) development support and central funding for Health Action Zone evaluation;
	(c) central funding for Primary Care Act pilots;
	(d) counter fraud operation service;
	(e) NHS Walk-In Centre pilots;
	(f) pay modernisation implementation; and
	(g) salary costs that have been paid for from capital; and
	How many staff have been excluded from the calculations of management costs for 2001–02 and 2002–03 on the basis that their salaries fell below the "salary threshold".

Baroness Andrews: Details of the costs that are excluded from management costs definitions and the number of staff whose salaries fell below the "salary threshold" are not collected centrally.

Beta Interferon Risk-sharing Scheme for Multiple Sclerosis

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Of the 9,000 patients who may be eligible to participate in the beta interferon risk-sharing scheme for multiple sclerosis:
	(a) how many were on waiting lists for treatment when the scheme started on 6 May 2002; and
	(b) how many are now receiving treatment; and
	To whom, figures for the number of patients currently:
	(a) on the waiting list for the beta interferon risk-sharing scheme for multiple sclerosis; and
	(b) receiving treatment on the beta interferon risk-sharing scheme for multiple sclerosis, are being reported by primary care trusts; and
	What action they are taking to encourage primary care trusts to implement the beta interferon risk-sharing scheme for multiple sclerosis; and
	What specific activities the steering group set up to oversee the implementation of the beta interferon risk-sharing scheme for multiple sclerosis is undertaking, and how its work will be passed down to Primary Care Trust for implementation; and
	Why there are no plans to publish a progress report on the implementation of the beta interferon risk-sharing scheme for multiple sclerosis, and how they will ensure that an update on progress is made available.

Baroness Andrews: We estimate there are around 5,000 patients now receiving treatment with a disease-modifying drug for their multiple sclerosis. About 300 new patients each month are being initiated on treatment. We do not have information about numbers waiting to be assessed.
	The project is administered by the scheme steering group which is composed of representatives from all participating companies, the MS Society and the MS Trust, the Association of British Neurologists, the Royal College of Nurses/Association of MS Nurses, and the four UK health departments. In broad terms, the steering group's role is to oversee implementation of the scheme and to advise the scheme co-ordinator and participants on any actions which could help to ensure the smooth and effective entry of patients into the scheme. For day-to-day purposes the scheme steering group has delegated its authority to a project monitoring group which works closely with the Sheffield School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR). ScHARR is co-ordinating the initiation of the project and the collection, capture and analysis of data relating to the scheme. ScHARR manages the consortium which is responsible for monitoring the health outcomes of patients entered into the scheme. To do so, they need to establish and maintain links with all the specialist centres which are assessing and prescribing treatment for MS patients. It is envisaged that the formal patient monitoring process for assessing cost effectiveness and pricing adjustments will continue for up to 10 years. Within this period there will be two yearly reviews of the reimbursement arrangements. It is intended that valid findings arising out of the data monitoring and analysis of the scheme will be published, if possible in peer-reviewed journals.
	We do not hold precise details about the way in which primary care trusts (PCTs) are implementing the scheme but following earlier reports of slow progress we asked strategic health authorities (SHAs) to adopt a proactive role with their PCTs to meet their statutory responsibilities. SHAs and PCTs have previously been reminded of their responsibilities to implement the scheme in the chief executive's bulletin dated 17 July 2002.

Non-invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation: Indemnity Insurance for Nurses

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether National Health Service community nursing staff, including district nurses, have indemnity cover to manage non-invasive positive pressure ventilation devices for patients, such as those with motor neurone disease, who are ventilated at home.

Baroness Andrews: Registered nurses are required to work within the nurses' and midwives' Code of professional conduct, as set out by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and are personally accountable to the NMC for their practice. The code states that, "you have a duty of care to your patients and clients, who are entitled to receive safe and competent care".
	Nurses usually have their own indemnity insurance through membership of a professional organisation, which if they are trained in non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, would provide cover. Employers, such as National Health Service trusts, primary care trusts or general practitioners, also have vicarious liability for the actions of nurses as their employees, and their indemnity scheme would provide cover, providing that the nurse was working within the role agreed with their employer.

Technetium-99: Discharge into Irish Sea

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When was the most recent discharge of technetium-99 into the Irish Sea from Sellafield.

Lord Whitty: Technetium-99 is discharged into the Irish Sea from Sellafield primarily as the result of treating Medium Active Concentrate (MAC), a liquid waste arising from the reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel. Batches of MAC are treated in "campaigns" at the Enhanced Actinide Removal Plant (EARP) which removes the most radiotoxic components of the MAC mixture. The latest treatment campaign, and hence the most recent discharges, were in February and March of this year.

Technetium-99: Discharge into Irish Sea

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to respond to the letter of 1 April from the Norwegian Minister of the Environment regarding the discharge of technetium-99 into the Irish Sea from Sellafield.

Lord Whitty: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Environment (Mr Michael Meacher) met the Norwegian Environment Minister, Borge Brende, on 15 May. A discussion took place for two hours during which expert advisers from both countries were able to address the complex technical issues that surround technetium-99 discharges. My right honourable friend emphasised that even though technetium-99 at the levels currently discharged does not pose a risk to human health or the environment, we do take very seriously Norwegian concerns about its presence in their coastal waters. Norway is concerned that the fact that technetium may be detected in seaweed and crustaceans in their coastal waters might lead to a perception of contamination for their fishing industry. The Government are sympathetic to these concerns, but when making decisions on how best to manage the backlog of liquid waste that contains a mixture of radiotoxic components along with the technetium-99, they must judge that against the possibility of increasing the radiation dose to workers at Sellafield and the safety hazards on the site. We have already taken action to reduce the technetium-99 discharge limit to 45 per cent of its 1999 level, and further action, currently being implemented, will reduce the discharge limit to 50 per cent of this level by 2006. There is no simple way forward that would allow us to manage the waste effectively and safely and reduce the discharges more quickly, but further scientific analysis is being carried out, and we are working hard to address Norwegian concerns as fully as we can.

Badgers: Krebs Trials

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the cost of the Krebs badgers trials to date; and when the final report of these trials will be published.

Lord Whitty: The cost to date of the randomised badger culling trial (the "Krebs" trial) is about £30 million. The final report will be published after the trial is completed in 2006.

Abattoirs

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the answer by Mr Alun Michael MP, on 15 May (HC Deb, cols. 450–2), what they consider to be the "acceptable" number of abattoirs for the United Kingdom livestock industry; and
	What percentage of overcapacity there is within the abattoir industry compared with the Meat Livestock Commission's figures for 1999 which showed 49 per cent for cattle, 55 per cent for sheep and 27 per cent for pigs; and
	How many abattoirs have closed since 1999; and how many of these fall into small, medium or large band groups; and
	Whether, in making their assumptions of overcapacity within the abattoir industry, they have taken into account the number of animals lost during the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak.

Lord Whitty: The Government do not attempt to manage the numbers and location of abattoirs in a dirigiste way: slaughtering is a commercial activity provided in response to the market. We do not intend to recreate the network of municipal abattoirs provided by local authorities prior to 1972, and have no firm view of the number of abattoirs that is "acceptable" at the national level.
	It follows that we do not as a matter of course monitor the level of overcapacity in the industry; from time to time, however, the Meat and Livestock Commission does produce a snapshot analysis of overcapacity according to species but it has not updated those calculations since 1999. Overcapacity, however, is a complicated issue to analyse as some species—notably lambs—have marked seasonality in slaughtering throughout, and the slaughtering industry has rationalised into large abattoirs serving the major multiple retailers and smaller abattoirs serving more local or specialised markets.
	We are concerned that in some regions the availability of abattoirs serving more specialist outlets has declined. We are keen for producers and processors to add value by developing regionally branded and other specialist types of meat. We will work closely with the regional development agencies to identify where assistance to small and medium abattoirs is needed to encourage innovation and investment in the meat supply chain. In addition, where appropriate we will also offer direct support for new or expanded facilities through the processing and marketing grant and for the associated marketing of quality products through the Rural Enterprise Scheme. The analysis of need and capacity is best carried out at the regional or sub-regional level.
	Abattoirs are classified as either full or low throughput and there is no separate classification for medium-sized abattoirs. A licence may be revoked or surrendered for a number of reasons: these include where premises fail to comply with the requirements of regulations or cease operating for commercial reasons. Some premises which have ceased operating may still hold a licence, for example, while a buyer is found.
	Between 1999 and May 2003, in England, 85 red meat abattoirs have ceased to be licensed to operate (53 low throughput and 32 full throughput); and 39 white meat abattoirs have ceased to be licensed to operate (12 low throughput and 27 full throughput). However, during the same period, 15 red meat abattoirs have gained a licence (seven low throughput and eight full throughput; and 15 white meat abattoirs have gained a licence (nine low throughput and six full throughput).
	In the UK in 1999, there were 263 full throughput red meat abattoirs and 190 low throughput, compared with 238 and 141 respectively in 2003. Comparable figures for white meat abattoirs were 106 full and 64 low throughput in 1999 and 89 full and 52 low in 2003.

Fallen Stock

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How often approved contractors will be contracted to collect fallen stock from each farm under the new rules on the disposal of fallen stock.

Lord Whitty: We would envisage that fallen stock will, once an approved collector has been notified, normally be collected within 24 hours and not more than 48 hours.
	This would be consistent with existing contractual arrangements where collectors are expected to carry out the collection of fallen bovines and ovines within 24 hours for TSE testing purposes.

Fallen Stock

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the new rules on disposal of fallen stock will provide storage containers or whether farmers need to provide them; and
	What a farmer is expected to do with any decomposing carcasses if, under the new rules on disposal of fallen stock, a contractor takes over three days to collect them from a farm.

Lord Whitty: Under most circumstances collectors will be expected to collect carcasses within 24 hours of reporting. However, if carcasses do have to be held pending collection, they must be held in such a way that domestic animals, including farmed livestock and wild animals cannot gain access to them. In practice, it would be reasonable to expect them to be held securely, such as in an enclosed building, or an area away from livestock under a suitable cover, such as a tarpaulin.
	There are no plans to provide farmers with storage containers under the subscription scheme. Some farmers may wish to provide their own storage containers, which must remain on the farm pending collection. Any such container must prevent animals/birds gaining access to the carcasses and must be both leak-proof, capable of cleansing and disinfecting and maintained in a clean condition.

Fallen Stock

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the new rules on disposal of fallen stock do not allow farmers to share a small capacity incinerator unless they take out a waste management licence, provided that the incinerator remains small scale.

Lord Whitty: Fallen stock are considered to be agricultural waste and currently are not controlled by the Waste Management Licensing Regulations. However, this situation is expected to change in 2004. At that time, shared low capacity incinerators which operate at below 50 kg/hour will additionally require a waste management licence issued by the Environment Agency or SEPA. This is because the exemption from licensing only applies where the waste is disposed of at the point of production. Those above 50 kg/hour will require licensing by the local authority, as at present.

Fallen Stock

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What monitoring of any increase in the fly-tipping of carcasses they will undertake.

Lord Whitty: Monitoring of any increase in the fly-tipping of carcasses is a matter for local authorities, usually trading standards, which will enforce the EU Animal By-Products Regulation.

Defra: Responses to Queries about Fallen Stock

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How long the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking to reply to written queries about the operation of the new rules on disposal of fallen stock.

Lord Whitty: The Department endeavours to reply to all correspondence within the Service First deadline of 15 working days.
	Due to the way our database is arranged it is not possible to provide separately identifiable information for fallen stock. However, for the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 the Department has responded to 88 per cent of all BSE-related correspondence, including fallen stock, within the 15 working day deadline.